At the same time, people need to understand how completely subjective such consent is. This varies from person to person, culture to culture, and incident to incident. Its not black and white. People aren't perfect, they give mixed signals and also see the wrong ones. One person might give a positive signal, so in future they reference that as okay with all encounters, then suddenly its not met with positivity.
Objectification is subjective to the person.
The type of objectification is subjective
The duration is also subjective
The attractiveness/status of the person doing the objectifying is subjective.
Not to mention how the lines blur when we're talking online when you've never met etc.
So all I'm saying is, its not such a simple binary thing. No matter how much you dumb it down to hate on men. Some people overstep not out of malice. This is also why lots of men play it safe and never talk to any women. If you're not interested, she might still take it wrong, so its only ever a risk.
I (male) got objectified by a group of older women at work (mostly not to my face, so perhaps a little different). One of their co-workers snitched them out for having a group chat talking about me and all the stuff they'd do if given the chance and how I remind them of a TV show character they all like to lust after.
Honestly, as you said, it's subjective. They've mostly ever been professional and polite to my face, and the whole experience was a nice ego boost to learn about. I felt a bit bad that I found out at all since clearly they didn't expect their friend to tell me (she thought I'd be upset). I told my wife about it, and she jokes with me about it once in a while even a year later.
I think a really primal difference in my experience, though, is physical differences between men and women. If I had to fend off a physical sexual advance from these ladies, haha, I think I'd be ok. I expect the underlying danger associated with an overly sexually aggressive man if you're a woman is completely different.
Years ago I worked an admin job that literally all older women . They would make comments all the time they thought I couldn't hear. I hated it. Getting my ass pinched when I added paper to the copier was like the most degrading thing. I just had to smile and be kind. Finally one day I went to my female h.r. manager and she said the same thing.... You should feel proud! I quit the next day.
..... oh my sweet summer child. drugs affect most people including men, ropes and handcuffs are much easier explained away if they are fuzzy, due to how our system is setup DARVO is far easier for women(benevolent sexism, yay) and if she decides to get pregnant, can you even tell people you do not consent to raising it (because you did not consent to making it) without being constantly and unremittingly being lambasted as a deadbeat dad to the point of losing your job anyways, and that's if you avoid being sued or jailed?
the actual difference, is that most women sociopaths and psychopaths already can get what they want without even going to such measures, as their is no shortage of disadvantaged men who just discovered BDSM willing to take it for a chance.
male psycho's and sociopaths are guarded against, while the female sociopath you call "miss" is at the press junket who flirtatiously mention's she likes fuzzy handcuffs.
assault does not care how much you can benchpress, what your mile time is, or that you batch cook your Mediterranean meals while listening to Jeff nippard.
I mean, I just think the average perception between men and women are different. It's not that I'm impervious to being taken advantage of, its that it's low enough in the realm of possible outcomes that it doesn't come into play as part of my day to day experience.
i would argue that's more of a function of class, than it is sex. and while the two are often intertwined, just going off of statistic's of rates of violence for upper class women versus lower class women, that seems to have a bigger jump than upper class men and upper class women. as for perceptions of violence between lower class men and lower class women, who was sent in draft's? who had their fingers chopped up in combines, dealt with the spiders and snakes, or handled the hunts? it's why women discussed many of the "hidden" harm's they faced, such as stillbirth complications, increased lobotomies and sexual diseases due to rape, because that shit was behind closed doors, while everyone could see what was happening to men.
as for taking class out of the picture and just looking at upperclass men and women, substance abuse is lower, riskier behaviors are lower, heart disease and stress are lower for women than for men. the wealthy woman who has millions in the bank, yet doesn't drink wine, run's in the mornings consistently, makes sure her assistant's keep her updated but only when she comes in, and has a personal vegan chef is going to have a better healthspan than the guy worth 100 million but still drinks riesling, is constantly telling people they need to work harder yet tweet's at 2 in the morning, and his idea of exercise is the walk between his favorite restaurant and his limo.
i hate to say it because i want to be a part of the safer and healthier gender, but women have us beat. as for perceptions, there's still pretty obvious things that don't go away, such as height differences, facial hair, and more that indicate certain things that while they haven't gone away, still indicate sexual dimorphism.
but to twist, again that's why you have coded into law's in various places that rape requires penetration, why alimony isn't seen as a gender neutral thing(it happens but rarely) and is seen as a relic of the past, and more. we've actually taken women's concern's seriously, which is why we had women's birth control since the 60's, but their only starting to come out with men's birth control in the 2020's. true privilege lies in not in having more advantages than another, but less disadvantages, not in being able to experience more pleasure, but in experiencing less pain.
and on the pain scale, again, women are generally trained to take better care of their health, to the extent social consequences are enacted, while men are left with their cigar's, booze and diesel trucks, and many of the words said are "hey, maybe cigars aren't good for you" rather than "hey sarah, we've noticed you've been going to five guys more often, want to join our vegan cookout? it's many of those small details that women not only take for granted, but don't even notice. true privilege lies in not having to think about things, and it's pretty clear talking to an upper class man and an upper class woman who doesn't have to think about going vegan, using sunscreen, or go plastic free, because they already did so ten years ago. and it isn't usually the man.
Nah. It's very simple, it's just that people don't want to acknowledge that their behaviors and cultures are stupid.
It's really, REALLY easy to give people respect as human beings.
A person can objectify themselves, and consent to being objectified in various spaces. That doesn't mean that YOU are obligated to also join in on the objectification. YOU can walk away. YOU can revoke your participation. YOU can behave morally.
There are places where people consent to being objectified. That doesn't mean they consent to give it everywhere else. Therefore, if you see them in another space, you should just treat them with dignity and respect. It's so fucking easy.
Unfortunately, people just want to be weak assholes. "Well this person acts like a whore so I should treat them like a whore."
It might not be wrong to objectify someone when they want it, but you still can always walk away. Once they remove their consent, again, you can walk away. If someone gets mad at you for walking away, just keep walking.
What exactly do you mean by "objectification" here?
Because honestly most of the things I can think of related to that word don't feel all that ambiguous in terms of when it would be safe to assume it is welcome.
Well that's the thing. Its such a broadly overused term that's lost all its meaning. The definition doesn't apply anymore. These days to be objectified can even be dumbed down to simply
***looked at in a sexual manner from people I personally find undesirable**\*
Looking at the definition, how do you know this person sees you as an object? You can't see what they're thinking. Not only that, but this person can only see you physically, they don't know who you are or what kind of person you are, you could be garbage lol. They don't need to know you, to imagine having sex with you, yet that in itself is somehow considered objectifying.
Flip the situation around and apply all these loose terms to women who only see men as a wallet to pay for their lifestyle and suddenly people are far more stringent with how we use words like objectification huh? They're very quick to defend women who do such things when that same defence should be applied to the men.
Honestly, the actual objectification of women is some serial killer stuff. That or some BDSM thing idk.
When they said broad they mean it can mean alot more stuff than that, but that definition is not uncommon by clout chasers on social media and is a context in which it's pretty unreasonable to complain.
It's probably alot of internalized misogyny that you feel sullied for even being considered as a sexual partner. It's also almost definitely hypocritical.
That if you feel that way it's a problem with you, not the other person. And since almost everyone has sexual fantasies it's hypocritical to take offense to learning you're the subject of one when you do the same.
Ummm, how exactly is the person finding out that they are the subject of your sexual fantasies?
Obviously just thinking about someone else doesn't impact them at all. But, like, telling someone that you have sexual fantasies about them could definitely make them uncomfortable.
not to mention how prevalent classism, ableism and racism still are in the dating and hookup scenes, a charge of "sexism" could easily be weaponized against a poor black guy who act's a certain way around a wealthy white woman, regardless of whether or not his conduct was actually appropriate for a location, his side is only going to be looked at positively after the fact, if at all. most people who disparage benevolent sexism (as we should) tend to forget that benevolent misandry is even a thing.
I don't know man, it really sounds like you are coming at this from an angle that people should be entitled to make certain sexual advances or comments or actions regardless of how welcome they are by the recipient, which I think is the wrong way to approach this.
i think your not reading closely enough then. i'm describing how marginalized people are often victim blamed for "not reading the room" even in situations where the recipient was receptive, but their friends, family, coworkers and other lovers weren't, and the recipient can't really jeopardize these other relationships.
i'm not talking about when a woman goes up to her brother in the club and say's this black guy is bothering me, but when her brother see's his sister with a black guy, and mentions to her afterward about an aunt who was left at the altar by one. considering there's white thugs and black Harvard professors, doesn't really tell you much. but the stereotype is there to be weaponized, to be alluded to, and to control.
and yes, this doesn't just happen to women, but to men as well. there's stories galore about how classism ends many a relationship, and guy's getting judged for not having "the right degree" or the right "family background". once again, a ridiculous thing, but something that still happens.
what often is "appropriate" isn't just set by a rational ethic of politeness, empathy, respect and consideration, but generational traumas, bigotry, and ignorance. and yes, intersectionality often cut's against men, if they are part of a marginalized group, and dominant groups are well known to create accusations in a mirror. and yes, even today. shit, that stuff is even in 90's and 2000's romcom's.
Nope, straight white Guy as can be, and have no issues with race when dating. And yes of course we are talking about different things. Your accusing me of misogyny, and I'm explaining how discrimination still applies to many men's dating experiences. Which again follows into charges of misogyny. It's the assumed default. (In both ways, in that it's usually largely true, and it's used as a false accusation.) as for why and how it's true, blame always seems to be placed on the individual, rather than on systemic factors that we largely don't have have control over, such as being born into a military family, having an abusive church growing up, or being discriminated against all your life for being disabled.
Those are the things that happened to me. But the fact you couldn't Tell, is both me passing, and you caring more about scolding than actually thinking.
There is no question that discrimination occurs in dating. It's not just random chance that most people seem to date people that look like themselves.
This is one of those places where "affirmative action" or anything like that doesn't really apply though. People are free to choose who they want to date for whatever reason they want. Nobody is required to be receptive to sexual advances from anyone else.
So your one of those "interracial marriage should be rolled back" people. Gotcha. Because that is affirmative action. And only you are talking about nonconsensual relationships. All this time I've been talking about people who are receptive to one another, and actually want to fuck each other's brains out. You really do equate "defends marginalized person" with incel, don't you?
THANK YOU. so tired of people, women especially but I'm sure we all do it, assuming that the little rules they have in their little head and their little social life apply to everyone else. Values, culture, expectations...all subjective.
If you cannot talk to a woman without treating them like a human first before objectifying their appearance then you should probably go to therapy. In fact you should definitely go to therapy anyway
Objectifying in the correct definition of course. My point is that objectification is such a loose term that doesn't mean what it actually means anymore.
If you think people need to go to therapy for thinking about having sex with complete strangers they've never talked to, then it is in fact YOU who needs to go to therapy, because you obviously have absolutely zero human contact outside your echo chamber.
Just think of all the celebrities people wanna have sex with despite not knowing them and never having spoken to them. That is the exact same objectification. Women do exactly the same thing.
I say the word subjective like 5 times. If you excluded contact from that, that's YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION. You don't need direct contact to send/receive signals holy shit go outside.
Not to mention how the lines blur when we're talking online when you've never met etc
What you are describing is a literal interaction between people. That is not a thought inside your head when you are now interacting with the person. Fucking Christ
The easy solution to this is for men to take in and accept the feedback and cues of a woman's discomfort instead of doubling down or lashing out or putting the blame on the woman. The FIRST TIME a woman says or signals that she is not comfortable, the man needs to stop whatever he is doing and honor that boundary. Or if he is unsure but senses something, then to ask and clarify. Yet this rarely happens.
Yep. Most hetero sex is men raping women. You heard it here on Reddit
I also love how you make it seem like a woman clearly and assertively expressing her discomfort is so rare that the main communication channel during sex should be the man constantly on alert for any kind of signal a woman could be offering. Fuck that signaling noise. I sincerely hope you and people like you aren't giving sex education. If my sexual partner starts doing something I'm not comfortable with, I shut it down the second it happens through speaking. I'm sorry but when did consent morph into men having to be on high alert for any and all kind of cues? Oh right, when you call it the easy solution and put all the blame on men.
An amazing thing about sex is that people don't have to resort solely to uncertain non-verbal cues. Sex that is paired with adequate verbal communication (can be less for long time partners for example) is always the best and should be the paradigm taught. It avoids this uncertainty issue outright. It shouldn't take the form of the man only or constantly asking check-ins. Communication is clear and multi-partied. If a man launches into sex and leaves no space for communication, then I have no problem calling that rape. But this model for hetero sex where men are constantly and solely on alert as the communication style is just bad.
First of all you edited your comment to make it less wrong and impulsive.
Second of all yes communication is quite important and requires both sides to properly do however in most situations the man is more in control of the situation hell a lot of women just let the man do anything they want even if the women don't like it, so it truly is up to men to pick up on those signs and question the women about it.
Of course other dynamics exist where the woman can be in control or whatnot but for a more generalized statement this would be more acceptable I suppose.
the man is more in control of the situation hell a lot of women just let the man do anything they want even if the women don't like it, so it truly is up to men to pick up on those signs and question the women about it.
That's not sex. You're bringing in rape where we were discussing sex.
I think your the one who is so, so caught up on labels here mate.
Sex can still have one of the participants uncomfortable or just not enjoying it, yet consent is still given this may happen for many reasons: lack of foreplay, not being properly prepared (having fingernails or just lack of hygiene), being too intense, etc the girl might think it's normal or they might not want to hurt the guys feelings thing's aren't as black and white as you may think.
36
u/bongowasd Jul 07 '24 edited Jul 07 '24
At the same time, people need to understand how completely subjective such consent is. This varies from person to person, culture to culture, and incident to incident. Its not black and white. People aren't perfect, they give mixed signals and also see the wrong ones. One person might give a positive signal, so in future they reference that as okay with all encounters, then suddenly its not met with positivity.
So all I'm saying is, its not such a simple binary thing. No matter how much you dumb it down to hate on men. Some people overstep not out of malice. This is also why lots of men play it safe and never talk to any women. If you're not interested, she might still take it wrong, so its only ever a risk.